“Vigorous writing is precise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.”—William Strunk, Jr., The Elements of Style

Filler Words, Fish Heads, and More I don’t carry a copy of The Elements of Style close to my heart, and I haven’t thought it was the definitive usage manual for nearly half my life, but old Professor Strunk really hit the nail on the head for me with the statement above. If those words could be tattooed on the living brain of every writer, editors would have a lot less work to do. That’s why I chose it as the opening quote in The Little Book of Self-Editing for Writers. Since I haven't mentioned it in a whole week, I'd just like to point out that for the negligible price of $4.99, you can buy the e-book at Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.ca, Amazon.com.au, and all Amazon stores. Thank you. Writers love words, and they often use too many of them when fewer would serve their writing better. The earlier in her writing career, the more likely a writer is to add words to explain things that don’t need explaining, to add adverbs when no adverb is called for, to add pet words that are so close to her heart that she doesn’t see them in her manuscript, and to add words that not only don’t move her sentences and paragraphs along, but tie them up and stake them out in the sun. We’re all prone to these same errors from time to time, but once we’ve learned what they are and why we make them, we can use that learning to grow as writers. I’ll cover some of these errors—in particular those related to over-explaining and other forms of repetition—in Part 5: When Words Get in the Way. For this article I’ll focus on filler words, fish heads (and tails), nominalizations, and a common word that may be making your writing sound common.

Eeeeuw!

Fish HeadsHave you ever used “suddenly” or “just then” to convey a feeling of urgency to the beginning of a sentence? It doesn’t. Adding unnecessary words before the action of a sentence begins slows it down, and your writing along with it. For instance, which version of each sentence below seems more immediate (or “sudden”)? A car screamed around the corner and fishtailed toward her.

Suddenly, a car screamed around the corner and fishtailed toward her.--Bobby dove for the gun.

Just then, Bobby dove for the gun. It’s the first example every time; it gets right to what’s happening and engages the reader without author interference. In addition to “just then” and “suddenly,” a lot of other unnecessary words and phrases like to cluster at the beginning of a sentence, as though trying to get it up to speed before it leaves the ground, and weighing it down instead. These are fish heads—the part you cut off.The words in the list below, and words like them, may be bloating your writing. You can make a case for any of them having its place, but that place is almost never at the beginning of a sentence that can get off the dime more effectively without their added weight. When not occurring at the beginning as fish heads, you may find words like these in the middle as filler words and at the end as fish tails. In all cases, consider carefully whether they're useful to conveying a direct sensory experience to your reader, or whether they're just excess baggage.

A second / an instant later,Actually, Again, so again, once again, Apparently,As always,As of yet, As you know / As you are aware,At that moment,Finally,For some reason, For that matterHowever,Immediately,In order to ____In the midst of ____, It occurred to ____ thatIn the process of [verb]ing ____,Needless to say,Just then,

Next,On the other hand,Once / At one time, Prior to ____,Suddenly,Suffice it to say, Sure enough,That meantThen, Just then,Soon,The (only) problem was,Unbeknownst to ___,Unfortunately,Upon ____ing,(Up)on closer inspection,While (after, before, in, by) doing (or other –ing)With that,Without further delay,Without warning,

Fish TailsMany of the items in the above lists can also flop around on the ends of sentences. When you find a word or phrase that might be a fish tail, follow back to the word or phrase that precedes it, and see if the sentence wouldn’t be better ended there. Whenever possible, a sentence should end on the strongest idea, the strongest word—the place you want to make an effect on the reader. If any of yours do not, either rearrange the words or chop off any fish tails that follow a strong natural ending.

The most egregious fish tails of all occur when the writer feels uncertain about how well he’s shown a thing and adds unnecessary words to explain it. The examples below may seem exaggerated, but they’re taken from manuscripts and published books. Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

“No way,” Larry said in denial.

“I’d love to!” Beth told him, showing her joy.

“Do it now!” Franz shouted in a yelling voice.

It comes in giant economy size!

Filler WordsIn addition to fish heads and tails, we may unconsciously add other fillers to our writing. “Just,” “that” and “then” are prime examples; they’re good words in moderation, but we can become habituated to them. This is by no means a complete list, and you’ll probably find more examples to add from your own first drafts, as I have. I’m not saying every instance of all of these words and phrases will be unnecessary, but if you take the time to search for each of them and notice where and how you use them, I think you’ll find lots of places where they crept in unneeded. If you ask your word-processing program to count them for you, you might just be horrified.

Able toAboutAlreadyBegan to Caused (something) toContinued toCouldDecided to Even I might addJustKept ___ingLike, as if,

Managed to ____NowObviouslyProceeded toSo to speakStarted toStillThatThe fact thatThenTo say the least Very

Zombies can be cute. Zombie nouns are not cute.

Nominalizations“Nominalization” is a nominalization – a verb made into a pseudo-noun, such as “rectification” or “organization” as opposed to a concrete noun—an actual person, place, or thing. Nominalizations convey little meaning while sounding utterly important, which is why they crop up so often in political speeches: they suggest a wide range of different things to different people and give a general feeling of usefulness (and extra syllables) without actually doing much of anything. Using them in place of concrete nouns or real verbs can make your writing sound like a corporate memo. You can’t avoid them altogether, but keep your eye out for them and try to rephrase where possible.Helen Sword, in her excellent New York Times article on the subject, calls nominalizations “zombie nouns” ‘...because they cannibalize active verbs’ and‘suck the lifeblood from adjectives.’ A woman after my own heart.

Not all nominalizations end with –tion, but that’s a place to start looking for them, and is easily searched. Words ending in –ship and -ence also sound solid and meaningful, but may freeze-dry otherwise free-flowing prose. Of course if you want to make a character sound like a corporate memo, then nominalization becomes a potent tool. But watch for it creeping into other characters’ dialogue, or into the narrative. Use a concrete noun, or change the sentence to accommodate a dynamic verb. Keep your prose moving.

The “ongoing” test: a word is probably a nominalization if you can put the word “ongoing” in front of it and make sense. If you can’t, it probably isn’t. You’ll never see an “ongoing fruit fly,” but you might be part of an “ongoing investigation.” “Ongoing urbanization” might disturb you, but you needn’t lose any sleep over “ongoing armchairs.”

The “wheelbarrow” test: If you can put it in a wheelbarrow, however large, it’s a concrete noun. You can put cats in a wheelbarrow—carefully—but not “classification” or “relationships.”

Consider the following examples of commonly used nominalizations followed by the same idea rewritten to return them to their verb state.

Willy gave the matter further consideration. Willy considered the matter further.-- Miller made an accusation of slander against Norden. Miller accused Norden of slander.-- It only served as an illustration of my problem.It only served to illustrate my problem.

Replace nominalizations and put the wheels back on your writing.

"Someone" existing "Somewhere"

The Word That Wasn’t ThereWe tend to use the word “some” when the quantity or other specifics about a thing are unknown. Lester expected to come away from the chicken coop with some eggs.

Ehrdrich would be bringing some muscle with him. As such, it’s not incorrect as much as unnecessary; the sentences below convey the same information. Lester expected to come away from the chicken coop with eggs.

Ehrdrich would be bringing muscle with him. So whether or not to use “some” in a case like this is largely down to how you feel about what it’s contributing—or not—to the meaning and the sentence’s rhythm. Sometimes the quantity in “some” is knowable but not important. Louise brought some chicken to the picnic.

I added some sugar to my coffee. …but it still has that “filler” quality. The sentences read a little cleaner without it. Louise brought chicken to the picnic.

I added sugar to my coffee. “Some” performs a useful job when a sense of mystery is required, and we’re not quite ready to reveal our specifics… Something skittered in the underbrush.

Something nibbled at the back of her mind.

Someone was coming. …but not so much when we need to paint the reader a picture. Giannino arrived with some soldiers.

(And along the same lines:)

Giannino arrived with a group of soldiers. Some? How many? What does “some” or “a group” look like in a reader’s mind? Giannino arrived with a platoon of soldiers.

…with a company of soldiers.… with a battalion of soldiers.… with three soldiers.Specifics paint a picture. “Some” does not. In sighted people, more than 2/3 of brain real estate is given over to aspects of the visual, including imagining pictures. Painting a picture for the reader is good.Go looking for weakeners in your manuscripts. Find them, then kill them. The cranky editor does not advise showing mercy to the enemies of your writing. You can download a copy of the Self-Editing Quick Reference, an excerpt from The Little Book of Self-Editing for Writers, at the Ravenscourt Press website.

TL;DRAre you slowing down your sentences with unnecessary words at the beginning? Fish heads. Chop ‘em. Are your sentences trailing on after they've done their work? Fish tails. Bin ‘em. Is your writing free of superfluous filler phrases: as you know, looked like, ended up being, etc? See above.

Be sure to tune in next week for Self-Editing for Everyone Part 5: When Words Get in the Way, where I'll offer up more about what weakens your writing.

COVER ARTAll the fabulous pulp magazine covers on this article series were created using the amazing Pulp-O-Mizer from art by its creator, Bradley W. Schenck.

Oh, wow, this series looks terrific! In the next few weeks I'll finally (finally!) have wrapped up my first draft and will be battening down the hatches for the long, cold winter of revisions. This is exactly what I need to keep me on track.

Reply

Bridget

8/21/2013 11:36:52 pm

Glad you're enjoying the articles, Kern. Next week I'll have a short one concerning homophones, and in two weeks a grand finale about point of view. Come back and read anytime.

Reply

Celia Lewis

1/29/2014 02:04:54 am

I am just going through my first novel draft with a list of 'get rid of' words, similar to these: just, rather, that, then, was, could have, used to, about, very sort of, really, had been, *ing verbs, and most *ly words.
I'm learning SO much from this process. So many better ways to write tighter and more focused. This post is absolutely priceless! Thank you so much.

Reply

Bridget

1/29/2014 03:37:01 am

Glad you're enjoying the articles. Hope you come back to read the rest of the series.

I finished reading an ARC last night of what would have been a GREAT book, were it not for the author's overuse of "just then." It was so frequent that I picked up on it by page 50, and wanted to clobber the writer with his own book by page 100. He used it five times in one chapter alone. In every instance it weakened the sentence, and by end of the book was pulling me out of the story. This is not the author's first book, and I cannot believe his editor is letting him get away with it. As this was an ARC, I can only hope it has been corrected for the copy that actually goes to print.

Reply

Bridget

4/7/2014 02:39:18 am

Yep. I know the feeling. :) Having similar experiences reading clients' manuscripts is what gave birth to this article. Using filler words and ramping-up phrases can become so ingrained a habit that we sometimes can't see them. If the editor can't see them either, the book's in real trouble.